DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 and 21-29 in the reply filed on 27 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 , 21-23 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019/0355975A1 (Vissers) in view of US Patent 5895730 (Ritchie).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Vissers teaches a high temperature battery/apparatus comprises a negative fluid electrode comprising a negative electrode material, the negative fluid electrode being fluid at least within an operating temperature range of the apparatus; a positive fluid electrode being fluid at least within the operating temperature range of the apparatus; and a solid electrolyte positioned between the negative fluid electrode and the positive fluid electrode, the solid electrolyte comprising cations of the negative electrode material and in a solid state at least within the operating temperature range of the apparatus ([0003], [0012], [0013], [0017], Figure 1 and 2 and claim 1), wherein the fluid negative electrode comprises lithium and the solid electrolyte comprises LiI ([0012], [0017] and Fig. 2).
Vissers further teaches that the selection of materials and operational temperature ranges for use in the thermal battery are at least somewhat based on the melting point of the electrolyte material([0028])
Vissers does not teach the solid electrolyte comprises a mixture of a plurality of salts , each of the salts having a proportion in the mixture that determines an absolute melting point.
Ritchie teaches an electrolyte system for high temperature batteries comprises a mixture of one or more of a lithium halides and one or more of a non-halide lithium compound such as lithium sulphate (col.2, line 35-40 and col. 3, line 5-12 and 60-65), wherein the melting range and the operating temperature of the electrolyte is determined by the proportion of the lithium halides and the sulphate in the mixture (Table 1). Ritchie teaches such electrolyte system exhibits higher conductivity characteristic of lithium halide only electrolytes, but with the advantages of lower melting point thus reduce the heat input required to operate the battery (col.2, line 28-30 and col. 3, line 25-30).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to include additional lithium salts of Ritchie in the solid electrolyte of Vissers. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Ritchie that to do so would reduce the heat input required to operate the battery (col.2, line 28-30 and col. 3, line 25-30).
Regarding claims 2-5, Vissers teaches the operating temperature range is at least above 35 percent of the absolute melting point of the solid electrolyte, i.e., may be above 70, or 80 percent of the absolute melting point of the electrolyte ([0028]), which meets the claimed range of claim 2 and encompasses the claimed range of claims 3-5, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Vissers teaches the high end of the operating temperature range may be limited by the boiling point of one of the electrode materials, i.e., the high end of the operating temperature range should at least be lower than the lower boiling points of the positive electrode material and the negative electrode material, and the high end can be less that 98 percent of the lowest electrode material's absolute boiling point ([028]), which meets the claimed range.
Regarding claims 21-23, Vissers teaches that the operating temperature is in a range of 365° C. to 444° C, 375° C to 425° C or 390 to 410° C ([0024] and [0029]), which meets the claimed range, respectively .
Regarding claim 29, Vissers teaches the battery includes a heating system for sufficiently heating the positive and negative electrode materials as well as the solid electrolyte during operation ([0016] and claim 14).
Claims 1, 8, 9 and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2019/0355968A1 (Visseres’968) in view of Ritchie.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Vissers’968 teaches a high temperature battery/apparatus comprises a negative fluid electrode comprising a negative electrode material, the negative fluid electrode being fluid at least within an operating temperature range of the apparatus; a positive fluid electrode being fluid at least within the operating temperature range of the apparatus; and a solid electrolyte positioned between the negative fluid electrode and the positive fluid electrode, the solid electrolyte comprising cations of the negative electrode material and in a solid state at least within the operating temperature range of the apparatus ([0002], [0019], [0020], Figure 1 and claim 1), wherein the fluid negative electrode comprises lithium and the solid electrolyte comprises LiI ([0019]).
Vissers’968 further teaches that the operational temperature ranges maybe selected based on factors such as the melting point of the electrolyte material([0021]).
Vissers’968 does not teach the solid electrolyte comprises a mixture of a plurality of salts , each of the salts having a proportion in the mixture that determines an absolute melting point.
Ritchie teaches an electrolyte system for high temperature batteries comprises a mixture of one or more of a lithium halides and one or more of a non-halide lithium compound such as lithium sulphate (col.2, line 35-40 and col. 3, line 5-12 and 60-65), wherein the melting range and the operating temperature of the electrolyte is determined by the proportion of the lithium halides and the sulphate in the mixture (Table 1). Ritchie teaches such electrolyte system exhibits higher conductivity characteristic of lithium halide only electrolytes, but with the advantages of lower melting point thus reduce the heat input required to operate the battery (col.2, line 28-30 and col. 3, line 25-30).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the additional lithium salts of Ritchie in the solid electrolyte of Vissers’968. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Ritchie that to do so would reduce the heat input required to operate the battery (col.2, line 28-30 and col. 3, line 25-30).
Regarding claims 9 and 24, Vissers’968 teaches that the solid electrolyte has a lattice of LiI with atomic scale defects ([0016]), wherein the lattice comprises Li cations and anions such as I- and O2- ([0028], [0029] and Fig. 4 )
Regarding claims 21-23, Vissers’968 teaches that the operating temperature is in a range of 365° C. to 444° C or 375° C to 425° C ([0022] and [0029]), which meets the claimed range of claim 21 and 22, respectively, and encompasses the claimed range of claim 23, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 f. 2d 257,191 USPQ 90(CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I. .
Regarding claims 25-27, Vissers’968 teaches the defects relate to the introduction of nanoparticles exemplified as MgO, which results in grain boundary defects, additionally or alternatively, existing grain boundary defects in the lattice may be stabilized with nanoparticles, i.e., “pinning,” occurs where existing grain boundary defects are more sustained due to the introduction of the nanoparticles ([0026], [0028] and Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 28, Vissers’968 teaches the defects comprises aliovalent substitution in the lattice ([0020]).
Regarding claim 29, Vissers’968 teaches the battery includes a heating system for sufficiently heating the positive and negative electrode materials as well as the solid electrolyte during operation ([0019] and Fig. 1).
Claim 30 is rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vissers in view of Ritchie as applied to claims 1-8 , 21-23 and 29 above, and further in view of US 2019/0006720A1 (Cheong).
The combined teachings of Vissers and Ritchie are set forth above.
Vissers further teaches that the negative fluid electrode is within a negative electrode region of a reaction chamber, and the positive fluid electrode is within a positive electrode region of the reaction chamber ([0016] and Fig. 1).
Vissers does not teach a negative region reinforcing structure, neither a positive region reinforcing structure.
Cheong teaches a molten salt-based lithium-sulfur battery, in which a porous metal foam is used as a binder for binding both the anode and cathode electrode active material, and simultaneously as a support for imparting mechanical rigidity, and a conductor for decreasing electrode resistance ([0012], [0015] and Fig. 2), which prevents overflow of an electrode active material upon melting the electrode active material in a liquid phase ([0008]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the porous, thus open geometry, metal foam support structure of Cheong in the negative region and positive region of the reaction chamber of Vissers and Ritchie, which meets the claimed reinforcing structure with an open geometry . The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Vissers that to do so would prevent overflow of an electrode active material upon melting the electrode active material in a liquid phase ([0008]).
Claim 30 is rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vissers’968 in view of Ritchie as applied to claims 1, 8, 9 and 21-29 above, and further in view of Cheong.
The combined teachings of Vissers’968 and Ritchie are set forth above.
Vissers’968 further teaches that the negative fluid electrode is within a negative electrode region of a reaction chamber, and the positive fluid electrode is within a positive electrode region of the reaction chamber ([0019] and Fig. 1).
Vissers’968 does not teach a negative region reinforcing structure, neither a positive region reinforcing structure.
Cheong teaches a molten salt-based lithium-sulfur battery, in which a porous metal foam is used as a binder for binding both the anode and cathode electrode active material, and simultaneously as a support for imparting mechanical rigidity, and a conductor for decreasing electrode resistance ([0012], [0015] and Fig. 2), which prevents overflow of an electrode active material upon melting the electrode active material in a liquid phase ([0008]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the porous metal foam support structure of Cheong in the negative region and positive region of the reaction chamber of Vissers’968 and Ritchie, which meets the claimed reinforcing structure with an open geometry. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Vissers that to do so would prevent overflow of an electrode active material upon melting the electrode active material in a liquid phase ([0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AIQUN LI/Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766